Judge bans designer babies

The creation of "designer babies" was today banned in Britain in a shock victory for pro-life campaigners.

A High Court judge ruled that the Human Fertilisation and Embryology Authority (HFEA) had no legal right to allow the screening of embryos so parents can create perfectly-matched babies to help their sick siblings.

The ruling is a huge blow to several families in Britain who were hoping to be given the go-ahead to use this technique, known as tissue-typing, in IVF procedures.

Earlier this year the HFEA gave permission for the first designer baby in Britain when they allowed Leeds couple Raj and Shahana Hashmi to screen embryos in order to create a baby who would be a perfect tissue match for their son Zain, four, who suffers from a rare blood disorder.

Without a bone marrow transplant from a donor, Zain will die. But pro-life campaigner-Josephine Quintavalle was outragedby the decision and went to court to stop what she called the "ethically objectionable" process of selecting and discarding embryos on the basis of whether they could save another child.

Ms Quintavalle, acting on behalf of the public interest group Comment on Reproductive Ethics (Core), said in a one-day hearing this month that giving this type of screening the go-ahead would mark the beginning of "designer babies".

In a shock victory, Mr Justice Maurice Kay today ruled that the HFEA had no legal power to license embryo selection by "tissue typing" to help sick brothers or sisters.

He said the case was in "a difficult area of medical science and ethics" and the legislation had been "tightly drawn" so that the ground rules "restrict the potential for misuse of science and technology".

A spokeswoman for the HFEA said: "We are disappointed with this unexpected decision and will be appealing.

"We will be studying the judgment carefully and consulting with our lawyers to see where this leaves everyone."

The Hashmis have already had their embryos screened but Mrs Hashmi has yet to become pregnant. One other couple have also applied to the HFEA for permission to screen embryos in this way. Fertility clinics must apply to the HFEA before they use the process because of the ethical quagmire surrounding the issue.

One designer baby has already been born in the US.

Ms Quintavalle said in a statement after the ruling: "We are obviously delighted with this judgment, but this is primarily a victory for the supremacy of Parliament.

"Such highly contentious ethical issues are for Parliament alone to decide. That, in essence, is our argument. The regulatory powers of the HFEA are contained within a defined framework which simply does not include tissue-typing.

"Core makes no secret of its opposition to the decision per se, and will continue to campaign against any procedure which puts one child at the disposal of another human being, no matter how emotional and moving the circumstances."

She added: "Other people hold opinions totally contrary to ours. The big question is 'Who should decide?' We are adamant that it is not for the HFEA, a small unelected quango, to make these decisions.

"This was not the intention of Parliament in 1990 when the Human Fertilisation and Embryology Act was passed.

"With social sex selection around the corner and innumerable other designer baby possibilities on the horizon, today's judgment is particularly timely. These vital issues involve the very essence of what it is to be human."

Mrs Hashmi, 38, had earlier described today's legal challenge as "outrageous".

She said: "These people could destroy not just Zain's right to life but that of hundreds of other children. What gives them the right to interfere in other people's lives?

"We are not designing, we are not destroying. We will fight Zain's corner and other children's corners and will never give in." Speaking after the judgment, Ms Quintavalle defended the move against accusations that it would restrict the medical choices of parents. She insisted the screening of embryos was the start of the road towards designer children.

"Today it is this case, tomorrow it is social selection, and the next it is going to be hair colour and eye colours," she said.

The HFEA did not accommodate the views of pro-life groups like hers, she said, and without taking the case to court, there would have been no proper public debate on the matter. She added: "I am perfectly prepared to discuss the issues. There are no ethically squeaky-clean situations."

It is believed that Mr and Mrs Hashmi will still be able to goahead with their treatment as the embryos have already been screened and selected.

Lawyers for the couple and the HFEA are urgently consulting on whether this is the case. But the ruling will stop the HFEA from giving the goahead for any other couples to use tissue-typing.